Page 5680 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, that is the fourth time I have asked you.
MR CORBELL: that people in the community do not understand that the Assembly works outside this chamber, but then goes on to reinforce that perception by arguing that we must be seen to be working harder in the chamber.
It is time for the opposition to grow up. It is time for the opposition to acknowledge that the sitting calendar has been a constant for a long period of time now, that 14 weeks is pretty much the average for the Assembly—not just under this Labor administration, but under previous administrations—and that there is little to be gained, in terms of their own standing as members in this place, through advancing the argument that they work harder than anybody else.
At the end of the day, the argument is simply along the lines of “mine is bigger than yours”. That is really the sort of base assertion that they are trying to make. We need to reflect on where the Liberal Party come from when it comes to this debate every year.
In response to Ms Bresnan’s comments, let me say this: in relation to Wednesday nights, it is possible to set a particular time in the sitting calendar for private members’ business on Wednesday nights and in relation to when the budget debates can be anticipated to be held in those periods later in a sitting year. All I would say to that, though, is that these things can be subject to change. What is more workable is an understanding amongst all parties about when the Assembly is going to rise on particular nights, for example. On Wednesday nights, we just need to get an understanding. We need to get an understanding about how long we wish to sit on a private members’ business day. I note that it has varied from week to week, but the Assembly works best when there is an agreement across all three parties about how that work is going to be done, particularly around private members’ business day and particularly around budget debates.
We know that in practice often that agreement is difficult to reach. I would simply make the observation that we can achieve the outcomes that Ms Bresnan is looking for in relation to Wednesday nights, private members’ business and also the budget debates, but it does ultimately rely on agreement being reached between all three parties.
In relation to the period of time for which the Assembly adjourns over the lunch period, it is the case that the Labor Party indicated to the Greens and the Liberal Party that we would support a return to the period of two hours from 12.30 to 2.30, which had been the practice in this place ever since self-government, until the commencement of this Assembly. We did so on the basis that it would be a unanimous position. I expressed that quite clearly at the government business meeting last week and privately to some members—that we were not going to suggest that unless there was unanimous agreement. The reason for that was that otherwise it would simply be another opportunity for an opportunistic opposition to run this ridiculous argument about who wants to work harder and who does not.
It was only when I was advised by Mrs Dunne—again very late, in the last 24 hours or so—that the Liberal Party would not be supporting that proposal that I chose not to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video